Ophiolite

Are you serious? You must be winding us up - right? This is incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Please tell me you're joking.

I was guessing the percentiles based on my personal preference to keep quiet about anything I'm not in the top 10% for - which is why you'll never see me discussing golf. But, yes. We'll let this one die. I just wanted to introduce an alternate way of looking at things.

Where are you talking leakages: Production site? Pipeline? Transport vehicle? Refinery? A different technique would be appropriate for each.

Nice post CA. I share your view that life may be abundant, but the bulk of it (pun intended) will be microbial. I don't rule out the possibility of non-carbon life, but I would be amazed by it. There was factual item in your post I think was in error. Now smashing comets into Mars to provide an atmosphere and hydrosphere would work' date=' but you aren't going to effect a significant [u']mass gain[/u] even if you smash all the asteroids in the solar system into it.

Damn. I thought this was a poll.

You haven't offended me calbiterol. Your intentions were honourable. Their failure was likely a consequence of the environment, not the attempt.

No, rest assured, the ability to absorb meaning from trite, low-quality teaching is a hugely valuable skill. You are minimising your chances of acquiring that skill. An intelligent persons learns from genius. A smart person learns from everyone. (e.g. from your last post I have learned three things - GPA is probably an abbreviation for Grade Point Average; this is an important measure of educational achievement/progress in the system you are in; 3.9 or 4.0 is pretty good - the top 10%, maybe the top 5%)

Nice touch John, in both senses of the word.

Good point. I think 'space' is implicit in the other three' date=' but it makes sense to make it explicit.If we were able to a) Colonise space (in the other sense) whether planets, artifacts or hollowed out comets and asteroids. b) Reduce the Earth's population to one billlion or less we can return much of the planet to a near 'natural' condition and live off the tourists returning to see the mother planet: the ultimate service economy [or would that be Soylent Green?']

Excellent. I now get your basic thesis. I need to return to your earlier posts and digest the details, then come back with specific comments or questions. That may take some time, as I do not wish to jump to conclusions. In the meantime: do you have a better image of the object? where was it found? I'm not looking for lat/long, but formation/horizon. Ophiolite

We have certain requirements as a 'civilised' species. Food Energy Raw materials The difference in demands on food production between an obese industrialised westerner and a healthy hunter gatherer is relatively small: it is of the close order of a factor of three. The difference in demand upon 2 and 3 are by these two different types of community are relatively large: of the order of a factor of one hundred. Technology will solve some of the shortfalls, but the long term solutions to 2 is fusion power and to 3 mining asteroids. There is sufficient capacity to produce food for perhaps twice as many people as presently inhabit the earth. So if we limited the population to that number we could get by. However, that also presupposes we have solved the energy and raw material issues. Since these will take an indeterminate time I agree with you that we should be aiming to first stabilise then reduce the global population.

Metatron I am trying to understand your underlying thesis. I don't get it. I don't understand your argument. I am not being deliberately coy to draw you out to an untenable position. I am not defending anything, for one thing I see nothing under attack. I keep asking the same questions over and over is because so far you haven't answered any of them. I might find it diverting to challenge you, but I can't do that if I don't know what you stand for. My function here is to learn. I am not unintelligent (IQ 145+). I am not uneducated (B.Sc. (Hons) Geology) I am not inexperienced (fifty six years and counting) I am utterly confused as to your central thesis - please respond to my request in post 54: in three or four paragraphs, without additional quotes or side issues, what do those quotes [in post 42] mean in relation to your theory.

Sound like fun. Can we sign up somewhere? And returning to Anarchaus's opening post: There is also a difference between random and constrained random. When I roll a dice the outcome of the throw is random, but I will always roll a number between one and six, and this number will always be an integer. I shall never role a fraction or a negative number, or an imaginary number. Yet the outcome will still be random.In the same way physics and chemistry determine the possible outcomes of the random concatenation of molecules. The three dimensional properties of proteins, the structural character of droplets, the template nature of clay surfaces, etc (all of which have been mentioned earlier) constrain the randomness of pre-biotic development.

Metatron, if Aardvark, Mokele and Ophiolite are having problems extracting a cogent argument from your posts then you have a problem. As previously noted either: a) your content is rubbish b) your communication skills are letting you down. Lets try a different tack - post 42, wherein you post many quotes, with no apparent purpose. Please, in three or four paragraphs, without additional quotes or side issues, what do those quotes mean in relation to your theory.

I'm glad you feel that way. It reduces the competition my children will encounter in the job market.

Excellent. Mice today, rats tomorrow, an elephant next year. But will the elephant be white?What it does demonstrate is that it will be a long time before we run out of things to invent and technology to develop.

Several books have been published on this topic, covering everything from grinding the mirrors, constructing the frame and selecting lenses. Unfortunately, the ones I read were published in the 60s and are unlikely to be available today. Try googling for "telescope construction" book amateur. That should give you some leads. Also check out amateur astronomy clubs in your area. There is a good chance one or more of their members will have built their own equipment and could give practical advice. Edit: My google suggestion turned up about four hundred links. Some of them look to be exactly what you need.

Redalert, I was not meaning to be trivial with my one word response. Several methods and 'tricks' have been suggested, but none of them work without the practice. May I suggest carrying this out when you are waiting in a queue, or sitting on a bus. In other words anytime you have nothing else to do to occupy your mind. (It also might help to learn your times tables up to say thirty three rather than twelve.) It is worth the effort. Unjustifiably, people often asume someone who is fast at mental arithmetic is also intelligent. I've fooled a lot of people that way.

Mokele, thanks for the support ....and the sex change. I valued the former and enjoyed the latter.

My favourite was , if you get my meaning.

These are all excellent survival traits. Don't apologise for being human.Regretably I don't know how we might nail them at the cellular level. Your artery clogging resistance might be a good one to pursue: scavenger cells that keep the lines clear. Mokele, if you are reading this, two questions: Do reptiles suffer hardening of the arteries. One suspects not. How do they avoid it? Isn't some form of snake venom used in treating angina? Any solution that way?

"Glial cells provide support and protection for neurons." from http://members.tripod.com/blustein/

My apologies for not checking the links once they were within the post. You may perhaps notice the problem is that the square bracket (close) has been incorporated into the url. Here is the corrected set of links: http://education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom_05.html http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm http://www.ufoindia.org/news_70sextillionstars.htm The last link is from a much more suspect source than India Daily: UFO India Organistion. That, however does not invalidate the datum. Perhaps you will find the same numbers more credible from this site. http://www.spacenow.org.uk/index.cfm?code=expluni&subcode=article&recID=43 Unless you wish to consider the Universe infinite in extent, it seems there are around 10^28 atoms (Edit for clarity: "in the Earth" )for every star in the known Universe.

Mustang, does my post - number 4 - fail to answer this for you? Known Universe - 70000000000000000000000 stars Earth - 13000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 atoms.

When did you prove me wrong? Do you know what the "personal" in "personal message" means? If you are going to quote from a pm do so accurately and in context. Let us desist from inflicting this on other forum members. Finally, I don't hate you, I don't dislike you, I am not angry at you. I suppose if I valued your opinion I might be offended by you, but stop projecting your own emotions onto others.. Now, goodnight!